How Safe Are People of Faith Who Believe in Traditional Marriage?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the Respect for Marriage Act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday with a vote of 258-169. Since the bill has already passed the U.S. Senate, it now heads to the desk of President Joe Biden. According to Gillian Richards, the bill seeks to codify the legalization of same-sex marriage into federal law. It has also displeased Republican lawmakers who consider it to be a threat to religious liberty. 

“It’s an absolute abomination with respect to … religious liberty,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told reporters after a press conference on his Texas border plan this Thursday. “It’s purposefully undermining religious liberty.”

Richards reported that Roy tried to amend the bill in the House that would have protected the religious liberty of those who believe in traditional marriage - a union of one man and one woman. However, House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) kept the amendment from moving to the floor of the House in Monday’s hearing. Roy made the following comments in a separate interview with The Daily Signal.

“Today, Congress passed a law that violates the very core of the First Amendment, the Constitution, and the rights we hold dear as Americans,” he said. “The so-called Respect for Marriage Act will result in predatory, activist lawsuits against good people of faith for simply living out their lives in line with their beliefs.”

“The anemic religious liberty protections in the Respect for Marriage would be laughable if the stake weren’t so high,” he added. “In good faith, I offered a common-sense solution, identical to the bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Mike Lee. It would have prohibited the federal government from discriminating against Americans based on their views on marriage, but Democrats on the House Rules Committee blocked it.”

Roy framed the bill’s passage as “another example of how Congress is broken.”

“Before the Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday, not a single committee held a hearing, heard from witnesses, or deliberated the details of this legislation,” he said. “Until we fundamentally change how we do business here, we will continue to fail the American people.”

“I offered an amendment,” Roy told reporters Thursday. “They shut it down on a technicality under a budget point of order.”

Both the U.S. Senate (61-36) and the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act without any amendments to protect people who believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. However, proponents of the bill say that there are protections for “religious service and solemnization of marriage.” Nevertheless, the bill holds no guarantees that this provision will protect people of faith, according to Roy.

In strong language, Roy called the twelve Republicans who voted for the bill in the Senate “stupid or deceitful.” He called the bill “an abomination.”

 

What Is the Best Type of Marriage for Rearing Children?

            Families, communities, and nations are strengthened with marriages with a male and a female. The traditional, or nuclear, families provide the ideal circumstance for rearing children. This is shown by both religious teachings and social science statistics.

            The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in September 1995. The fifteen men who signed the documents are sustained by more than 16 million people as prophets, seers, and revelators. In other words, they speak for God. Here are some of the words of that document. 

We … solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children….

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife….

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children… [and] will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity….

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

            Family scientists view the traditional, or nuclear, family to be the ideal type of family to rear children. They use various theories to look at families to determine how they can help families. Using the Structural Functionalism Theory, they compare society to the body. Just as the body needs all the organs – brain, heart, liver, kidneys, etc. – working together to be healthy, the family needs all members to be working properly. The family is the basic unit of society and must be in balance to be healthy.

            The Structural Functionalism Theory assumes that the function of families is to procreate and socialize children or prepare them to be useful to their society. This theory tells us that husbands and wives play certain roles in the family. Statistics show that males – in general – have greater capacity to provide the necessary ingredients for physical survival, and that women – in general – have greater capacity to meet the emotional needs for the family.

            We can look at providing the needs of the family through a lens of providing nutrition for the body. The male provides meat and fruit, and the female provides vegetables and starches. If there are two males, there is double the amount of meat and fruit but no vegetables or starches. If there are two females, there is double the amount of vegetables and starches, but no meat and fruit. Only the traditional marriage of one man and one woman provides the necessary “nutrition” for the family.

            The problems in society come from the breakdown of marriage and the family. It started in the 1960s with Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty when his administration enlarged the welfare program and penalized women who married (single mothers received more money than if there was a husband) and the free-love society. It continued with the no-fault divorce, and it continued with the redefinition of marriage with the unconstitutionally based Obergefell v. Hodges decision by U.S. Supreme Court.

            The good news is that the traditional family is coming back, which means that more children are being reared in a home with a father and a mother. Americans of all ages can strengthen families by understanding that the ideal condition for the rearing of children is in a traditional marriage. Once families are strengthened with traditional marriage, they can strengthen their communities      and nations.

Why Does the Definition of Marriage Matter?

            Families, communities, and nations are stronger when the definitions of words are established and honored. Leftists change the meaning of words to work their agenda. Definitions of words changed recently include secure, recession, woman, marriage, and family.

·         The Biden administration insist that the southern border is “secure” even though 3 million or more people have entered the United States in the past 18 months.

·         The Biden administration put the United States into a “recession” according to numerous economic experts, but the administration refuses to call it a recession.

·         Then nominee for the Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked for the definition of “woman,” and she declared herself incapable of defining a woman because she is “not a biologist.”

·         “Family” has been defined as any group of people ranging from the traditional family to a group of unrelated people living in the same house.

·         “Marriage” was once defined as a union between one man and one woman. Now, it includes a union between two men or a union between two women. It is possible that the definition will expand to include other configurations in the future.

This essay will discuss the importance of traditional marriage in prospering societies. Ryan T. Anderson is an expert on why traditional marriage matters in public policy. In his book titled Truth Overruled – The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, Anderson wrote, “Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.” He continued by stating that governments recognize marriage because it “protects children by encouraging men and women to commit themselves to each other an to take responsibility for their children.”

As strong as the government’s interest is in the marriages of its citizens, however, it is important to remember that the government does not create marriage, it recognizes marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that predates government. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation (2015, pp. 24-26).

            Marriage between a man and a woman makes a complementary union that is essential for raising children. Anderson explained that there is “no such thing as ‘parenting.’” However, “There is mothering, and there is fathering, and children do best with both” (2015, p. 26). Anderson quoted other well-known experts on marriage and family.

In a summary of the “best psychological, sociological, and biological research to date,” W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, finds that “men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise, that children benefit from having parents with distinct parenting styles, and that family breakdown poses a serious threat to children and to the societies in which they live.” Wilcox finds that “most fathers and mothers possess sex-specific talents related to parenting, and societies should organize parenting and work roles to take advantage of the way in which these talents tend to be distributed in sex-specific ways.” These differences are not the result of gender roles or sex stereotypes. They are a matter of what comes naturally to moms and dads, what moms and dads enjoy doing with their children.

Dads play important roles in the formation of both their sons and their daughters. As the sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University explains, “The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” Popenoe concludes: We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies,” just as we should disavow the popular notion … that “daddies can make good mommies.” … The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary – culturally and biologically – for the optimal development of a human being.

            Anderson did not leave us wondering about the distinctive gifts of mothers and fathers. He quoted Wilcox as saying that there are “many distinctive talents” that mothers bring to mothering, but three of them standout: “their capacity to breastfeed, their ability to understand infants and children, and their ability to offer nurture and comfort to their children.” He also quoted Wilcox as describing some distinctive gifts of fathers: fathers “excel when it comes to discipline, play, and challenging their children to embrace life’s challenges” (2015, p. 27).

            Studies show, and experts teach, that children of both sexes benefit from having the attention of both a mother and a father. Anderson explained that when father engage in “rough and tumble play” with their boys, they are teaching them that it is “all right to put people in headlocks but not to bite, pull hair, or gouge eyes.” He continued, “Fathers help their boys channel their distinctively masculine tendencies into productive activities” (2015, pp. 27-28).

            Anderson explained that “the link between crime and fatherlessness if very clear” for boys. “Studies of crime indicate that one of the strongest predictors of crime is fatherless families” (2015, p. 28). Just as fathers matter for boys, they also matter for girls according to Anderson. “Consequently, girls who grow up in intact families are much less likely to experience puberty at an early age, to be sexually active before marriage, and to get pregnant before marriage. Indeed, the longer fathers stick around, the less likely girls are to be sexually active prior to marriage” (2015, p. 29).

Social science confirms the importance of marriage for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best according to virtually every indicator examined when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best in measurements of educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration (2015, p. 30).

            The definition of marriage matters because traditional marriage is the best “laboratory” for rearing children. Society benefits from traditional marriage because mothers and fathers use “distinctive talents” in their mothering and fathering tasks. Children who are reared in households with their biological mother and father are less likely to commit crimes and engage in premarital sex. Adults who marry and stay married – one man and one woman – can strengthen their family, community, and nation.

Why Is Traditional Marriage Essential for Strong Societies?

            Traditional marriage strengthens families, communities, and nations. Traditional marriage, also known as biblical marriage, is a union between one man and one woman. Such a marriage has been in existence since God performed the marriage between Adam and Eve.

            The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in 1995. The first paragraph of the proclamation defined marriage as being “between a man and a woman.” It then stated that such a marriage “is ordained of God.” The third teaching in the first paragraph is that “the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

            Ryan T. Anderson, defender of traditional marriage, wrote that marriage is essential to good public policy. The male-female sexual relationship has been regulated by governments for many – if not hundreds and thousands – of years. Anderson explained that governments are interested in male-female sexual unions because these unions are the only ones that “produce new human life.” (See Truth Overruled – The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, 2015, p. 24.) Anderson continued:

For highly dependent infants, there is no path to physical, moral, and cultural maturity – no path to personal responsibility – without a long and delicate process of ongoing care and supervision to which mothers and fathers bring unique gifts. Unless children mature, they never will become healthy, upright, productive members of society. Marriage exists to make men and women responsible to each other and to any children that they might have….

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Government recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit themselves to each other and to take responsibility for their children….

Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the irreplaceable social function of marriage. Laws and social expectations can strengthen or weaken marriage in this role, and that’s why the government is rightly involved in this aspect of our lives….

As strong as the government’s interest is in the marriages of its citizens, however, it is important to remember that the government does not create marriage, it recognizes marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that predates government. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation. (Anderson, 2015, pp. 24-26).

            Government policies do not always strengthen and support marriage and family. Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) has revised a bill titled Family Security Act 2.0. He discussed the bill recently at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. His message was that family policies need to be overhauled in such a way that would “encourage marriage and stability” – policies that are “pro-family, pro-work, and pro-birth.” His proposal will encourage marriage and employment while strengthening family finances. 

Like most government policies, Romney’s proposal throws money at a problem. The problem is that both marriages and births are declining. Romney said that the government should set incentives for people to have babies that they do not want, but its policies should not penalize those people who marry and have children.

Studies show that marriage creates stronger families in numerous ways. This is particularly true of couples who marry and stay married. Parents can strengthen their family, community, and nation by getting married, staying married, and working together for the good of the family.

 

Importance of Marriage

                Families, communities, and nations are strengthened when all of us understand the importance of marriage and treat it with the respect it deserves.  As a nation, we have debated the pros and cons of traditional marriage between a man and a woman and discussed the effects of divorce on society for years.  In recent years, we have been forced to consider the implications of gay marriage.  As our nation considers the effects of the recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court concerning same-gender marriage, we must understand that traditional marriage is threatened on many fronts, but we can still keep our marriages strong if we are willing to pay the price. 

                In an interesting article entitled “Divorce Rates Threaten Marriage More Than a DOMA Repeal,” Sara Stringer wrote, “Marriage offers individuals a high happiness quotient and provides a strong backbone for America’s families.  As a social institution, it continues to provide strong infrastructure for those who are able to commit to and maintain their vows.  However, social mores change.  Increases in premarital cohabitation and sex, as well as the cultural acceptance of divorce, contribute to a growing marriage crisis in this country….

                “However, while these changes in culture affect the divorce rate, it is the cultural acceptance of divorce itself as a remedy that keeps divorce rates high.  Those in successful marriages experience higher rates of financial stability and happiness; however, our culture continues to become more accepting of divorce versus providing support to make marriages work for the long haul.  Political figures like Newt Gingrich, pop culture personalities like Kim Kardashian, and others demonstrate divorce as a common approach to fixing imperfections within a marriage.

                “Marriages offer stable family structures and tremendous support systems, and they help America stay wholesome and focused.  But keeping a marriage strong takes work.  Couples must communicate with each other openly, establish boundaries, and learn to compromise.  Divorce may provide an `easy way out,’ but the separation creates financial and emotional rifts that stall success and growth.  The well-being of America depends on strong marriages.”

                Just moments before their wedding in August 2012, Bre and Josh Curtas of Lynchburg, Virginia, took a moment for prayer.  In order to pray together without actually seeing each other, the couple held hands from around a corner while bowing their heads in prayer. A photograph of the couple praying together has gone viral on more than one occasion.  Bre Curtas wrote about her wedding on her blog in January 2013, and the picture went viral again in June.  Why would such a photograph be of interest to so many people?  I believe it is because we all understand deep down inside that marriage is important and this couple understood the importance of making prayer a part of their wedding as well as their marriage.

                Even though the bride remembers only “bits and pieces” from her wedding on August 11, 2012, she will “never forget those 40 quiet seconds.”  “I think this photo has gone viral because it’s not about me.  No one is looking at it for my dress or the venue or my hair or jewelry. That stuff doesn’t matter.  I think people are touched because it’s two young people taking a minute to forget about those things and thank the Lord for what he’s done.”

                The couple dated for ten months before Bre broke off the relationship because of fear of commitment.  One year later Josh invited her to meet him for coffee.  “As I sat across the table from him, I realized there wasn’t a day that he didn’t pray that the Lord would bring me back.  And even though we hadn’t seen each other for a year, he loved me even more than the last time he saw me.  I knew I’d never find that again.”

                Bre said that “prayer strengthened their relationship after being apart for so long.  It was also the reason why she decided to wait until her wedding night to have sex.  It was a tough choice to make, one that the couple struggled with for months.  And she understands that it’s not for everybody….”

                This couple began their marriage with prayer and moral cleanliness as well as a deep love for each other.  All couples struggle at times in their marriages, but those couples who understand the importance of marriage and make God a part of their relationship are usually able to weather the storms that come into their lives. 

                The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the importance of marriage and what we can do to make our marriages last forever – for all eternity.  Many statements by Church leaders can be found at this site.   Here are a few of the statements.

“Marriage is and should be a sacrament.  The word sacrament is variously defined, but among Christian people it signifies a religious act or ceremony, solemnized by one having proper authority.  It is a pledge, or solemn covenant, a spiritual sign or bond between the contracting parties themselves and between them and God” (Hugh B. Brown, “The Latter-day Saint Concept of Marriage,” Liahona, June 2011).  

                “Marriage is the foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue, and the foundation for eternal exaltation.  Marriage has been divinely designated as an eternal and everlasting covenant.  Marriage is sanctified when it is cherished and honored in holiness.  That union is not merely between husband and wife; it embraces a partnership with God” (Russell M. Nelson, “Nurturing Marriage,” Ensign, May 2006, 36). 

                “The mere performance of a ceremony does not bring happiness and a successful marriage.  This requires forgetting of self, continued courting, and obedience to the Lord’s commandments” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Oneness in Marriage,” Liahona, October 2002).  

                “How shortsighted so many of us are, how prone to look only at today without thought for the morrow.  But the morrow will surely come, as will also come death and separation.  How sweet is the assurance, how comforting is the peace that comes from the knowledge that if we marry right and live right, our relationship will continue, notwithstanding the certainty of death and the passage of time.  Men may write love songs and sing them.  They may yearn and hope and dream.  But all of this will be only a romantic longing unless there is an exercise of authority that transcends the powers of time and death” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marriage That Endures,” Liahona, July 2003).  

                In spite of the recent decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States supporting same-gender marriage, we need not fear destruction of marriage as long as we understand the importance of traditional marriage and do those things that strengthen marriage.  Since God ordains traditional marriage, we can rely on Him for assistance in keeping our marriages strong and avoiding divorce.  We can strengthen our families, communities, and nation by strengthening our marriages.

National Conversation about Marriage

            Traditional marriage – the foundation of civilization – is under attack in spite of the fact that 41 states and our federal government affirm that marriage is between one man and one woman.  There is much need for a national conversation about marriage.  We each must decide if and why we support traditional marriage.

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on March 26 and 27 in cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 with their decisions coming later.   Yesterday, thousands of pro-marriage supporters gathered in our nation’s capital to join the March for Marriage.  I firmly believe that the Court should uphold these laws and support the constitutional rights of citizens and/or their elected representatives to make marriage policy. 

Whereas our leaders have previously supported traditional marriage, President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) have all “evolved” into support for same-sex marriage.  Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) responded to the latest announcement by reiterating his support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  There has also been “a broad and diverse array of scholars” who has filed more than 50 amicus briefs defending marriage at the Supreme Court.

In our efforts to protect and preserve traditional marriage, we can learn much from the French.  Last November 100,000 people gathered in Paris to protest a bill to recognize same-sex marriage.  On January 13, 2013, supporters covered Paris with bright pink.  The National Assembly passed the bill any way, prompting the pro-marriage movement to gather 700,000 signatures in just over a week to demand that the law receive more study.  Their request was denied, and the bill will be debated in the French senate.

 David Azerrad at The Foundry posted,  “The French pro-marriage movement has forced a national conversation on the redefinition of marriage.  They’ve flipped public opinion on same-sex marriage:  A majority is now opposed to it.  And they’ve built support with the general public and attracted many people who are neither conservative nor religious.”

Azerrad’s article explained that the French achievement came for several reasons:  “First of all, they made this a debate about the well-being of children – not the desires of adults….  In all public pronouncements, the focus is always on the needs and rights of children….

“Second, they’ve put together a diverse coalition that includes not only the traditionalist and Christian groups one would expect to be opposed to gay marriage but al homosexuals, socialists, feminists, Jews, and Muslims….

“Lastly, they’ve avoided the cardinal sins of the vacuous age we live in:  stuffiness and uptightness.  The government called its bill `Marriage for All,’ so the marriage activists called their movement `The March for All.’  Their official color is bright pink. Their slogans are clever and punchy…..

“What the French have shown us is how to craft a rhetorically powerful message that makes clear that the marriage debate is not about homosexuality but the needs and rights of children.”

Former Senator Jim DeMint  recently spoke at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and highlighted the importance of marriage for America and limited government:  “We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage.  Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity, and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states.  People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.

“In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases.  The Supreme Court should uphold these laws.  It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.  We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them.  We cannot.

“Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand.  They’re natural allies.”

As usual, The Heritage Foundation is at the forefront of this battle and show that they can craft policy that will benefit all Americans without changing the definition of marriage.  The Heritage Foundation, working with the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council, has produced a shortpamphlet making the case for marriage in everyday language.  This pamphlet answers numerous questions, including:  What is marriage?  Why does marriage matter to the government?  What are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Heritage provided a background report on marriage entitled “Marriage:  What It Is, Why It Matters, and theConsequences of Redefining It;”  Heritage also published a book to support traditional marriage entitled What Is Marriage?  Man and Woman– A Defense.

The abstract for the background report on marriage states:  “Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.  Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.  By encouraging the norms of marriage – monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence – the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.  The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.  The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”

I hope that you will join our national conversation about marriage.  The Supreme Court cases held recently provide a “window of opportunity” for us to explain what marriage is and why it matters.  Please study the references linked above and become knowledgeable in ways to “flip” non-marriage supporters to traditional marriage. I also suggest that we follow the French example and stress the fact that marriage is about the rights of children and not the desires of adults.

Stand for Marriage

                    Families are stronger when there is a traditional marriage as the basis for the family.  Prophets have declared that marriage is ordained of God.  The scriptures tell us that the first marriage on this earth took place when Heavenly Father performed the wedding ceremony for Adam and Eve.  Traditional marriage between man and woman has been the norm for more than 6,000 years.

                    One difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is their attitudes about traditional marriage.  Romney is for traditional marriage, and Obama is not.  This difference may cost Obama some votes in the African-American communities.

We all know that Barack Obama was for traditional marriage - until he needed campaign cash.  When his coffers did not fill as rapidly as he needed, he declared that he had "evolved" from being for traditional marriage to being for gay marriage. 

When Mitt Romney spoke at the 103rd national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), he spoke to them like adults and equals.  Mitt basically walked into hostile territory that day because the vast majority of African-Americans strongly support Democrats and their liberal economic plans. 

The crowd booed when Romney declared that he would repeal Obamacare; however, they loudly and strongly applauded when he shared his strong stance on marriage.  "A study by the Brookings Institution has shown that for those that graduate from high school, who get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of becoming poor is two percent.  And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76%....  Here at the NAACP you understand the deep and lasting difference that family makes.  […] Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country and that must be our goal.  As President I will promote strong families and I will defend traditional marriage."

About the same period of time Texas Governor Rick Perry was interviewed by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution for the Uncommon Knowledge series at National Review Online and reaffirmed his strong support for marriage.  "If you are going to base your public service upon your values then you are going to get criticized by those who don't agree with those values.  I don't back away from my positions on traditional marriage, on abortion.  Those are values, and actually they are values from my perspective, they can't be equivocated.  You are either for traditional marriage or you are not.  You are either for protecting innocent life or you are not….  The issue of traditional marriage is one that continues to bubble forward and I happen to believe that if you are going to have a society that is successful, economically or otherwise, you are going to have to have values that you attach that society to.

"For 2000 years we have had marriage between a man and a woman….  I suspect that issue is not going to go away, but just because you share a different view, or you are flexible on the issue does not mean that God has changed his mind about it."

Just because a small percentage of the citizens of this nation want to change the definition of marriage, the majority do not have to accept that change.  Like Romney and Perry, we must be willing to stand firm on our principles and promote strong families by defending traditional marriage.  We must keep traditional marriage as the norm if we want the family to remain the core unit of society.  We must do our part to stand for marriage.